don mcgahn should testify before the white house judiciary committee and they hope that may influence other individuals to come forward and testify in this impeachment inquiry. we ll see if that actually happens. but nevertheless you re hearing from democrats who feel good about what they re hearing. they believe they have more than enough evidence to move forward. we ll see when they ultimately decide if this is it with the house intelligence committee. this could be the last week before they move into the next phase, wolf. we ll stand by. we re getting ready for round two as i say of this hearing. david hale and laura cooper are about to walk into the hearing room and the chairman of the committee adam schiff will bring this session to order. it is interesting, kaitlan, that ambassador sondland couldn t remember all of the precise details of that july 26th phone call he had. he was sitting in a restaurant, outdoors, in kiev, in ukraine. the u.s. embassy councillor for political aff
they ve been unable to do. if you read the transcript as the president wants you to do, he is saying that giuliani is his point person in all of this stuff and all of this stuff has to do with in part military aid and in part getting a meeting at the white house and certainly the dnc server. i think democrats in some ways hung everything on mueller last go round. we remember what happened with the mueller testimony. they re hoping this line-up, this kind of murderers row of folks will be very different than mueller was. one more point if we have time. i was just on the hill and there were three republicans going in and going out of the skiff. all three of them made the point that sondland couldn t tell investigates how he knew there was a military aid quid pro quo. he couldn t say if trump told him, did mulvaney tell him. he just assumed it.
other people? who would those people be? would they be witnesses who have said no to congressional subpoenas to give a more loyalist take, if you will. think about this as the building blocks. they re trying to make the case what happened. the democrats say it was corrupt and abuse of power. what happened comes from bill taylor. there was an irregular foreign channel of u.s. policy making with ukraine one that included volker, sondland, rick perry and mr. giuliani. to your point, the democrats can t argue the president doesn t have a right to have an unorthodox foreign policy. the democrats can not argue the president doesn t have a right to put whoever he wants in charge of said policy. the dots the democrats need to connect is to show that giuliani was working counter to the administration policy, which was to bolster this new government, stand up to russia and that he was making money on the side
initially the white house tried to stop everybody, a lot of state department people, some national security council people came forward. here s ambassador yovanovitch. ukrainians were wondering whether i was going to be leaving, whether we really represented the president, u.s. policy, et cetera. you know, it was really kind of cut the ground out from underneath us. again, is that just the presentation to which republicans can say, yeah, maybe the president was mean to his ambassador, but he s different. this is how he does things. or can they connect it to corruption and abuse? that s the big problem. you hear a lot of people talk about giuliani. sondland seemed to kind of throw giuliani under the bus. again, connecting it to the president has been something
there are some differences of opinion or at least republicans are going to argue there are differences of interpretation. the question is, can they do that successfully in a public setting when you have these very credible, very experienced, very meticulous note taking diplomats at the table saying here s how it happened? is that public spin or are they really confident that they can make a case that this was okay? maybe not the way most people would do it, but this was okay? i feel like from reading the transcripts and looking at the republican questioning behind closed doors, it really seems like they re throwing spaghetti at the wall and seeing what sticks. they try to say russia didn t interfere in the 2016 election because the president is obviously very sore on that subject. it seems like right now at least after sondland made this amendment to his statement they re really going to be latching onto this point about him saying he sort of assumed